Replies

More research/disclosure needed on Mark Lloyd.

YidWithLid had this yesterday:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/08/general-electrics-investments-in.html
TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009
General Electric’s Investments in The Democratic Party are About to Pay Off -BIG TIME !
General Electric has been investing in President Obama and his democratic party since the beginning of the primary season over two years ago. They even pushed their TV networks to be in the tank for the POTUS and the SCHMOTUS (Biden) and their policies.

That “tinkle down my leg” news coverage has paid off big for NBC News’ parent company. By taking advantage of its ownership of two tiny banks in Utah, GE has been able to issue $80 Billion dollars worth of federally backed loans about one out of every four dollars available in the program.

And true to being a friend of the President, General Electric didn’t have to go through any of the burdens other participants had to go through like the financial stress test. Nor did they have to worry about any those pesky salary/compensation limits so Jeffrey Immelt and the senior management didn’t have to worry about the $14-18,000,000 in compensation they make.

But all that is Small potatoes, GE is uniquely positioned to make a real killing from the President:

How GE puts the government to work for GE
By: Timothy P. Carney

“The intersection between GE’s interests and government action is clearer than ever,” General Electric Vice Chairman John G. Rice wrote in an Aug. 19 e-mail to colleagues.

Rice was calling on his co-workers to join the General Electric Political Action Committee. “GEPAC is an important tool that enables GE employees to collectively help support candidates who share the values and goals of GE.”

The full letter suggests that “share the values and goals of GE” really means “support policies that profit the company.”

Steve Milloy, a pro-free market investor at the Free Enterprise Action Fund, obtained this e-mail and says it reveals General Electric for what it really is. “GE is lobbying to become the biggest rent seeker this country has ever seen,” Milloy told this column. Rent seeking is using government legislation or regulation to generate private profits the free market wouldn’t provide.

“On climate change,” Rice wrote, “we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses.”

Most of all, Waxman-Markey would profit a GE joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which deals in greenhouse gas credits, products that have value only if a cap-and-trade bill like Waxman-Markey passes.

The leaked e-mail shows how tightly GE connects PAC contributions and lobbying efforts. “Our Company is heavily impacted by a number of issues pending in Washington this fall,” Rice wrote.

GE spent more on lobbying in the second quarter of this year than did any other company, according to federal lobbying files. Since 1998, GE has been the king of lobbying expenditures, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outpacing its runner-up by 40 percent.

Last election, GEPAC spent $2.4 million, with a slim majority going to Democrats. So far this year, two-thirds of GEPAC money has gone to Democrats.

Rice’s description of how PAC contributions help the company (”we must also make sure that candidates who share GE’s values and goals get elected to office”) belies the true dynamic in political giving, as the rest of the e-mail suggests.

By calling for PAC contributions in the context of GE’s lobbying efforts in coming weeks, Rice is clearly not talking about electing pro-GE candidates in November 2010. He is talking about making current congressman more pro-GE.

If GEPAC was just trying to “make sure that candidates who share GE’s values and goals get elected to office,” why would the PAC give $15,000 each to the Republican and Democratic senatorial campaign committees? Those contributions cancel each other out if they are considered ammunition for allies in electoral battles. But they complement one another if they are considered the ticket price to access with lawmakers.

The recipient list of GEPAC cash also suggests the PAC is more about access to power brokers than support for friendly politicians.

Rep. Charlie Rangel of Harlem received $2,000 from GEPAC. He is not in electoral danger, but he is chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Henry Waxman of Hollywood also doesn’t need GE’s help getting elected, but the $1,000 from GEPAC might make Waxman, who’s chairman of the Commerce Committee, more amenable to a GE-friendly climate bill or health care reform bill.

Of the six House members who have received more than $4,000 from GEPAC this cycle — all Democrats — only Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., faces a tough re-election next year, thanks to accusations that he has used his chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to benefit donors and patrons. GE is a top defense contractor.

The other top recipients are all safe incumbents in powerful positions: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, Ways and Means member Richard Neal, who chairs the subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, and key appropriator Norm Dicks.

The “intersection between GE’s interests and the government’s actions” is plenty crowded. GE is betting on climate change legislation, high-speed rail funding, electric car subsidies, embryonic stem cell grants, expanded federal health care spending, subsidies for renewable energy, defense contracts and continued financial bailouts.

GEPAC pays the tolls to make sure all this traffic gets through.